Risk, ceilings, floors & draft strategy

[patchick]

So to me, ceiling is the least important of the 3 categories. Yes, it still means something, but only after I've evaluated the floor and the short-term projection.

OK, a question then: does that hold true equally across all positions? For instance, Cassel and O'Connell were about the LEAST ready quarterbacks imaginable. O'Connell had terrible mechanics playing for a terrible college offense, so his immediate floor was essentially worthless. Yet they spend a 3rd on him, with guys like a 2-year USC starter still available, based on raw potential (aka ceiling). Was that a mistake?

And at OLB, 90% of the players who the Pats would play at that position man the DL in college, requiring transition time. So if you focus on short-term/floor you either have to eliminate the position from day-1 consideration or restrict yourself to a tiny pool of Clint Sintims.

Those are two of the least likely positions to plug in a rookie starter, yet they're also two of the most sought-after type of players in the league. So how do you factor in the nature and value of each position?

 

[bucky]

OK, a question then: does that hold true equally across all positions? For instance, Cassel and O'Connell were about the LEAST ready quarterbacks imaginable. O'Connell had terrible mechanics playing for a terrible college offense, so his immediate floor was essentially worthless. Yet they spend a 3rd on him, with guys like a 2-year USC starter still available, based on raw potential (aka ceiling). Was that a mistake?

And at OLB, 90% of the players who the Pats would play at that position man the DL in college, requiring transition time. So if you focus on short-term/floor you either have to eliminate the position from day-1 consideration or restrict yourself to a tiny pool of Clint Sintims.

Those are two of the least likely positions to plug in a rookie starter, yet they're also two of the most sought-after type of players in the league. So how do you factor in the nature and value of each position?

Excellent question. For QBs, I think there is definitely a difference. First off, I think they are harder to project in all areas - floor, ceiling, and short-term progress. And with QBs there is typically no in-between. They're either a success (NFL Starter), or not. But in terms of process, I think you have to follow the same methodology. Attempt to evaluate their floor, short-term projection, and ceiling. Then make a determination based on that. I don't see how else you would do it.

It's the same for WRs and OLBs. Yes, absolutely they are harder to evaluate accurately than say an OL. And therefore, the risk of drafting one of those guys is higher. But I would still follow the same methodology for all the positions.

The one area, as I mentioned, where that would change, is in the later rounds. Once you get to prospects whose floor is to barely compete for the final roster spots on your team and on special teams, you might as well start looking at the ceiling a little more. Essentially, you are playing with the houses money and you might as well get a big payoff if you hit.

 

[BPF]

Evaluation strategy differs depending on what Rd you're drafting the player in. In Rds 1-3 you take players that have produced on the college level. Projections are for Rds 4-7. Also you can't think of production in terms of position, you have to look at it in terms of what type of things you going to ask the player to perform in your scheme.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Evaluation strategy differs depending on what Rd you're drafting the player in. In Rds 1-3 you take players that have produced on the college level. Projections are for Rds 4-7. Also you can't think of production in terms of position, you have to look at it in terms of what type of things you going to ask the player to perform in your scheme.

Some would argue that Chad Jackson produced, but taking a WR from a college spread offense to a Pro offense, spread or not, involves a pretty substantial projection. I forget what Bethel Johnson's college production was, but wouldn't he have been more projection than production too? Was Hill that productive in college?

 

[maverick4]

Some would argue that Chad Jackson produced, but taking a WR from a college spread offense to a Pro offense, spread or not, involves a pretty substantial projection.

And yet somehow a TE convert who played DE one year is somehow going to be a monster player at OLB?

Yet another paradox in the twisted logic that drives Box's reasoning.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

And yet somehow a TE convert who played DE one year is somehow going to be a monster player at OLB?

Yet another paradox in the twisted logic that drives Box's reasoning.

Yeh, I am twisted, which makes me appreciate your own contortions.

So while you're telling all of us what fools we are for projecting Barwin to OLB for NE, which draft prospect would you select to improve the pass rush and in what round?

 

[maverick4]

So while you're telling all of us what fools we are for projecting Barwin to OLB for NE,

I never contested a conversion from DE to OLB, I am contesting your self-proclaimed expertise that NE should take Barwin (a completely raw player, no OLB experience and 1 year at DE) with their #1 pick based on some games you saw on a couch.... it's very relevant to this thread.

 

[Clonamery]

I never contested a conversion from DE to OLB, I am contesting your self-proclaimed expertise that NE should take Barwin (a completely raw player, no OLB experience and 1 year at DE) with their #1 pick based on some games you saw on a couch.... it's very relevant to this thread.

I love self-proclamation envy.

 

[bucky]

Good discussion, I like your answer.

The nice thing about the O-line, Dante can plug rookies in and get good results - as four of the current starters indicate. So I agree drafting Beatty within the context of our hypotheticals isn't a good value (it isn't in the "real" world either, but I'd have to arm wrestle mayoclinic to make my point). Let's take this back to OLB which, so far, has demonstrated a different progression timeline in NE.

TBC and Woods needed 3 and 2 seasons respectively to earn the #3 OLB slot on the roster. Both were servicable. BB now has third rounder Crable on the roster, he's more experienced coming out of Michigan than Woods, but he's not as athletic - both men also had some maturity questions to be pondered when they were signed/drafted. We can project the more experienced Crable to take at least the same progression timeline as his more athletic friend, game reps by the end of the 2009 season, if not sooner due to injury. That puts him on track for #3 OLB in 2010 when TBC is a UFA and Woods is either an RFA or a UFA. The question here relates to strengths, Dean Pees says Woods is a strong edge rusher, NCAA statistics says Crable is an excellent run stuffer. Woods hasn't demonstrated that edge rush's effectiveness in a game yet, and for various reasons, he didn't do it in college - at this point it's a projection. Crable struggled setting the edge in preseason, technique and strength issues. Prior to the draft next April, NE's #2, 3, & 4 OLBs - as we fans project them - have only TBC's 5 sacks in 2006 to project any edge rush to bookend Adalius (and he's on a one year contract) and Woods (whom some claim can't set the edge) is the best run defender of the three. Additionally, coverage is a big questionmark for all three.

Three part question:
-- Does NE draft an OLB prospect in this draft?
-- Which prospect has the floor you're looking for (and what is that floor)?
-- What is his "realistic" projection?

I understand what you're saying and agree with you about it taking longer for OLBs in this system to develop and also the added risk/complexity of converting a college DE to OLB. I don't know enough about the OLB prospects to answer you questions 2 and 3. I definitely think OLB is a big need and certainly hope that the team finds someone worth taking with one of the first 2-3 picks.

At the same time, I think there are needs (if not 2009, then 2010) at other positions such as DB, OL, and probably ILB, DL, and WR that warrant picking the guys with the highest floor at any of those positions. For example, an OT who projects as an upgrade over Kaczur, or S who projects as an upgrade over Sanders in 2010 would be a better pick IMO than an OLB who projects to be about as good as Crable at that same time.

If Sintim's floor is equal to the Woods of last year, and his 1 year projection is as a solid starting OLB, I would take him at 23.

Your final point about coverage is a whole thread onto itself. But suffice it to say that LB coverage was probably the Patriots' biggest weakness last year and I'm not sure it's something that can be addressed in the draft. Young guys have to develop as coverage LBs, so hopefully Mayo, Guyton and Woods will all be better. Personally, I would resolve the problem by playing as many DBs as possible on 3rd downs - with the likes of Harrison and Sanders playing inside.

 

[BPF]

Some would argue that Chad Jackson produced, but taking a WR from a college spread offense to a Pro offense, spread or not, involves a pretty substantial projection. I forget what Bethel Johnson's college production was, but wouldn't he have been more projection than production too? Was Hill that productive in college?

Jackson wasn't that productive in college till he was moved to the slot. I never liked that pick too much, I felt it was a reach for a key area of need. But everyone is a genius in hindsight. Bethel Johnson was drafted on projection, you're right, with the thought that he would be a better pro than he was a college player. He played in a conservative offense @ Texas A&M and some thought he was a diamond in the rough. To me he had one skill, one that can't be taught - speed. He ran a sub 4.4 40- and had decent size. He failed because he was never willing to pay the price, his technique was sloppy and he never became a student of the game. Marquise Hill, God rest his soul, was a big, strong DE who scouts thought would be a perfect fit as a 5-technique. He had good initial quickness and the strength to hold up at DE in a 3-4. He had terrific height and a huge wingspan which made him tough for OTs to block. He was stout at the point. He was a good tackler. He had a non-stop motor and played hard. If you remember Hill was a dominator for LSU as a junior when he posted 40 tackles, 10.5 behind the line, 6 sacks and led the team with 24 QB pressures. What he didn't do was recognize plays well, both runs and play action. He also played upright at times and needed to learn to use his hands better. Although a little raw technique wise, most felt Hill had tremendous upside. Prevailing thought was that he was a mid 2nd Rd pick.

I think you're point is that those players were productive but were still "busts." I did say "....you can't think of production in terms of position, you have to look at it in terms of what type of things you going to ask the player to perform in your scheme." which in Jackson's situation was not the case. He performed well in the slot in college but the Pats wanted him to play outside and their thinking was that since he had great speed and was tall with jumping ability he could make the transition. Well his field speed never transalated to his workout #s. If you remember he was the talk of the combine when he blew it up with a 4.32 40-. To me he was more workout warrior than football player.

 

[captain stone]

1) With so many 08 rookies making the team we are now getting young fast, too fast.

2) I dont see more than 5 draft picks with a shot at making the team.

1) According to Reiss, the NEP are the 2nd-Oldest team in the league, so I wouldn't worry about becoming too young too fast.

2) Why not? There are certainly enough holes on this team into which a dozen rookies can fit. Out of the 6 top-100 picks, I want the FO to use 5 of them. They can trade one of the 2nd-rounders if they wish, but that should be it. We need talent, and youth, and we need it now, while Brady still wants to play football.

 

[Mike the Brit]

A great question and a great thread!

I have a hard time adjusting myself to the "ceiling-floor" thinking but I have an idea of what might be behind it.

Think of what you're looking for in a draft pick.

1. Physical-athletic ability

2. Attitude and self-discipline

3. Ability to adapt and develop in the NFL (the ability to adjust to a more complex and demanding form of the game).

Basically, 1 and 2, you should be able to scout reasonably effectively. 3 is more of a guess and a gamble. Some do it better, some do it worse.

Now, I think that to be an outstanding player in the NFL you need to be outstanding on Physical-athletic ability as well as having (2) and (3) at an adequate level. Basically, however motivated and smart you are, physical-athletic ability sets your ceiling. So teams are tempted to hope for the best with (2) and (3) when they have a player who has (1).

Cases in point: Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Troy Brown. Wes and Troy have made absolutely everything of themselves that they possibly could. But, love them as we do, neither could be the dominant "franchise player" that teams hope for in Round One. Would teams have been better off drafting Troy or Wes in Round One than some of the famous busts (Rogers, Terrell, etc., etc.)? Of course. But teams could easily see that they didn't have the physical-athletic upside and so it was natural that they weren't drafted early. Now look at Randy. Everyone knew he had fantastic physical-athletic ability. There were, though, question marks about his personality and attitude. We now know that he's a fantastically committed athlete with (according to BB -- so no arguments there!) a great football brain. But it's understandable that teams hesitated to take him right at the top of the draft.

Conclusion. Teams are looking for "franchise players" at the top of the draft. For that, outstanding physical-athletic gifts are a requirement and the pool of players who evidently have that is limited. Teams, however, see that as a necessary requirement for an early draft pick and so are prepared to shade -- gamble on -- the requirements of character, commitment and football intelligence. Pragmatically, they would be better off not doing so, but there is obviously a strong element of wishful thinking. (How many times do we read about a high draft pick that he is "a great kid"?)

Finally, we should remember not to underestimate stupidity: if an organization were so brilliant at picking players, why would it have a top draft pick in the first place?

 

[dryheat44]

Here's a problem that's been digging at me. It seems this time of year, and this thread is a shining example, that "high ceiling" is code for "showed a lot of athleticism at the combine and pro days."

I'm not sure that's the case. I understand the thought process "You can coach up a terrific athlete to be a better football player, but a lesser athlete has lesser NFL potential." But I don't buy it.

Troy Brown was a 9th round pick with below average athleticism. Tom Brady was a 6th rounder with well-below average athleticism. The list is virtually endless. Players, even those without eye-popping athleticism, improve. I don't think anybody thought Brown's ceiling was franchise all-time leader in receptions when Parcells cut him early in his career. Nobody thought Brady's ceiling was multiple Super Bowl MVP and one of the top 10 quarterbacks in the history of the league when he was a fourth-string rookie. But they took to coaching, understood the game, and knew how to get the most of their abilities and compensate for their physical shortcomings.

I'm not going to bother to get into those players (Mike Mamula) that had a high upside (Monty Beisel) but in fact (Ahmad Carroll) washed out of the league in a few years (Drew Henson) because everybody knows they exist (Chad Jackson) and who they are.

So let's not equate "high ceiling/upside" with "impressive athleticism". There's no reason to think Clint Sintim has a lower ceiling just because he jumps six fewer inches or runs a quarter-second slower shuttle than Barwin, to use one example. He, and others, will be taught how to be a better football player like everybody else who comes into Foxboro. Monty Beisel is one of my favorite whipping boys, because he had all the athleticism in the world to be a pro-bowl linebacker, but he didn't have the heart or courage or willingness to take the pain that went with it. High ceiling? You bet. But we found out that state of mind overrides physical talent in this game every single time.

So who are the legitimate high-ceiling guys -- that is the guys who have a better-than-average opportunity to be better pros than collegians? The guys like Patrick Chung who haven't been playing football for very long and are still learning the nuances of the game. The guys like Aaron Maybin, who have a ways to go before reaching physical maturity. The guys like Darrius Heyward Bey -- not because he's a bit faster than everybody else, but because he was hampered by a terrible offense that forced him to adjust to make plays and has never a QB that could reliably get him the ball. And the guys like Tiquan Underwood, who were overshadowed by a higher-profile player but quietly produced anyway.

Okay, now that THAT pet peeve has been aired, back to the discussion.

 

[mayoclinic]

Here's a problem that's been digging at me. It seems this time of year, and this thread is a shining example, that "high ceiling" is code for "showed a lot of athleticism at the combine and pro days."

I'm not sure that's the case. I understand the thought process "You can coach up a terrific athlete to be a better football player, but a lesser athlete has lesser NFL potential." But I don't buy it.

Troy Brown was a 9th round pick with below average athleticism. Tom Brady was a 6th rounder with well-below average athleticism. The list is virtually endless. Players, even those without eye-popping athleticism, improve. I don't think anybody thought Brown's ceiling was franchise all-time leader in receptions when Parcells cut him early in his career. Nobody thought Brady's ceiling was multiple Super Bowl MVP and one of the top 10 quarterbacks in the history of the league when he was a fourth-string rookie. But they took to coaching, understood the game, and knew how to get the most of their abilities and compensate for their physical shortcomings.

I'm not going to bother to get into those players (Mike Mamula) that had a high upside (Monty Beisel) but in fact (Ahmad Carroll) washed out of the league in a few years (Drew Henson) because everybody knows they exist (Chad Jackson) and who they are.

So let's not equate "high ceiling/upside" with "impressive athleticism". There's no reason to think Clint Sintim has a lower ceiling just because he jumps six fewer inches or runs a quarter-second slower shuttle than Barwin, to use one example. He, and others, will be taught how to be a better football player like everybody else who comes into Foxboro. Monty Beisel is one of my favorite whipping boys, because he had all the athleticism in the world to be a pro-bowl linebacker, but he didn't have the heart or courage or willingness to take the pain that went with it. High ceiling? You bet. But we found out that state of mind overrides physical talent in this game every single time.

So who are the legitimate high-ceiling guys -- that is the guys who have a better-than-average opportunity to be better pros than collegians? The guys like Patrick Chung who haven't been playing football for very long and are still learning the nuances of the game. The guys like Aaron Maybin, who have a ways to go before reaching physical maturity. The guys like Darrius Heyward Bey -- not because he's a bit faster than everybody else, but because he was hampered by a terrible offense that forced him to adjust to make plays and has never a QB that could reliably get him the ball. And the guys like Tiquan Underwood, who were overshadowed by a higher-profile player but quietly produced anyway.

Okay, now that THAT pet peeve has been aired, back to the discussion.

I don't think we're equating high ceiling just with athleticism or pro day showing. Certainly I'm not.

Connor Barwin was identified as a high ceiling guy way before the senior bowl. Things that make him a high ceiling - athleticism, intangibles (high motor, quick learner), versatility, raw technique that will likely get better or time, lack of experience on defense that will likely get better over time. His combine and pro bowl numbers just verify the athleticism that we've seen him display on the field.

William Beatty was identified as a high ceiling guy way before the senior bowl. The thing that makes him a high ceiling is his natural footwork and agility, which make him the most natural LT prospect in a long time.

Sean Smith was identified as a high ceiling guy towards the end of the regular season, based on his uncommon size/speed, good hips, and ability to potentially play both FS and CB. From what I can tell, his workouts have been solid but not spectacular, and don't affect the estimation of his ceiling.

There are plenty of other examples.

I would argue that Aaron Maybin is a true high ceiling guy, but with a terrible floor. I disagree with you about DHB - I think he is a workout warrior who doesn't produce on the field. And I think that Patrick Chung is a great kid who is somewhat limited athletically, who I think of as having a higher floor than a ceiling. He's not that inexperienced relative to other prospects at his position.

 

[bucky]

A great question and a great thread!

I have a hard time adjusting myself to the "ceiling-floor" thinking but I have an idea of what might be behind it.

Think of what you're looking for in a draft pick.

1. Physical-athletic ability

2. Attitude and self-discipline

3. Ability to adapt and develop in the NFL (the ability to adjust to a more complex and demanding form of the game).

Basically, 1 and 2, you should be able to scout reasonably effectively. 3 is more of a guess and a gamble. Some do it better, some do it worse.

Now, I think that to be an outstanding player in the NFL you need to be outstanding on Physical-athletic ability as well as having (2) and (3) at an adequate level. Basically, however motivated and smart you are, physical-athletic ability sets your ceiling. So teams are tempted to hope for the best with (2) and (3) when they have a player who has (1).

Cases in point: Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Troy Brown. Wes and Troy have made absolutely everything of themselves that they possibly could. But, love them as we do, neither could be the dominant "franchise player" that teams hope for in Round One. Would teams have been better off drafting Troy or Wes in Round One than some of the famous busts (Rogers, Terrell, etc., etc.)? Of course. But teams could easily see that they didn't have the physical-athletic upside and so it was natural that they weren't drafted early. Now look at Randy. Everyone knew he had fantastic physical-athletic ability. There were, though, question marks about his personality and attitude. We now know that he's a fantastically committed athlete with (according to BB -- so no arguments there!) a great football brain. But it's understandable that teams hesitated to take him right at the top of the draft.

Conclusion. Teams are looking for "franchise players" at the top of the draft. For that, outstanding physical-athletic gifts are a requirement and the pool of players who evidently have that is limited. Teams, however, see that as a necessary requirement for an early draft pick and so are prepared to shade -- gamble on -- the requirements of character, commitment and football intelligence. Pragmatically, they would be better off not doing so, but there is obviously a strong element of wishful thinking. (How many times do we read about a high draft pick that he is "a great kid"?)

Finally, we should remember not to underestimate stupidity: if an organization were so brilliant at picking players, why would it have a top draft pick in the first place?

Your points about Brown and Welker are great and in many ways, support my argument that floor is more important. Both of these guys have gone way through the ceiling based on where they were projected as collegiates. But I would say that the reason they were drafted as low as they were had to do with their floor at the time - neither one of those guys was able to make the team out of TC. Would the outcome have been different if their ceilings had been higher at the time? Probably. But it just goes to show you how difficult it is to project someone's ceiling with any degree of accuracy and why that project alone is almost meaningless.

I realize I'm repeating myself a lot, but the more we discuss this, the more convinced I'm becoming of this.

 

[dryheat44]

I don't think we're equating high ceiling just with athleticism or pro day showing. Certainly I'm not.

Connor Barwin was identified as a high ceiling guy way before the senior bowl. Things that make him a high ceiling - athleticism, intangibles (high motor, quick learner), versatility, raw technique that will likely get better or time, lack of experience on defense that will likely get better over time. His combine and pro bowl numbers just verify the athleticism that we've seen him display on the field.

I'd put him in the high upside just because his limited experience playing defense. Not because he blew up the combine and his Pro Day. There's a lot he doesn't know about playing football.

William Beatty was identified as a high ceiling guy way before the senior bowl. The thing that makes him a high ceiling is his natural footwork and agility, which make him the most natural LT prospect in a long time.

I'm on record as targeting Beatty as best value at #23, but really, footwork and agility can be improved by repetition and coaching. He's ahead of the curve, and maybe has a safer projection, but I don't think it makes his ceiling any higher than say, Alex Boone.

Sean Smith was identified as a high ceiling guy towards the end of the regular season, based on his uncommon size/speed, good hips, and ability to potentially play both FS and CB. From what I can tell, his workouts have been solid but not spectacular, and don't affect the estimation of his ceiling.

Good point. I could have listed another category for rare body type, but I think it's a sub-category of athleticism. Smith seems to be more agile than most people his height. But if he ends up being a safety, then he's really not special.

I would argue that Aaron Maybin is a true high ceiling guy, but with a terrible floor. I disagree with you about DHB - I think he is a workout warrior who doesn't produce on the field. And I think that Patrick Chung is a great kid who is somewhat limited athletically, who I think of as having a higher floor than a ceiling. He's not that inexperienced relative to other prospects at his position.

This is where I think you're nuts...or have unreasonably high expectations. DHB a workout warrior who doesn't produce? He had 96 catches in his first two years of college in a run-first offense with future convenience store clerks and night watchmen throwing him the ball. 96 catches, and I think I saw 4 hit him in stride. I identified him as the best WR prospect in the draft, and I had no idea he was a 4.3 guy, because he never had the chance to show it.

Chung has played football for all of five years. He's a converted soccer player. I think that qualifies as inexperienced. Most players have played at least through high school, if not Pop Warner leagues. His athleticism is fine, if not quite up to Delmas's level, it's not far off. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on those two specifics, but obviously, that's OK.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm on record as targeting Beatty as best value at #23, but really, footwork and agility can be improved by repetition and coaching. He's ahead of the curve, and maybe has a safer projection, but I don't think it makes his ceiling any higher than say, Alex Boone.

Come on, Alex Boone? Footwork can be improved, but you can't teach natural LT kind of footwork. Boone will never be a solid, much less elite, LT. His ceiling would be a Kaczur-like RT, and his floor is lower than low.

This is where I think you're nuts...or have unreasonably high expectations. DHB a workout warrior who doesn't produce? He had 96 catches in his first two years of college in a run-first offense with future convenience store clerks and night watchmen throwing him the ball. 96 catches, and I think I saw 4 hit him in stride. I identified him as the best WR prospect in the draft, and I had no idea he was a 4.3 guy, because he never had the chance to show it.

Chung has played football for all of five years. He's a converted soccer player. I think that qualifies as inexperienced. Most players have played at least through high school, if not Pop Warner leagues. His athleticism is fine, if not quite up to Delmas's level, it's not far off. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on those two specifics, but obviously, that's OK.

First of all, I can get considerably more "nuts" than this if I want to take the brakes off.

Second, I don't think that anyone can argue that DHB's production has not matched his athletic ability. The big question is whether it's because of the system, or the player. Of course, Chad Jackson was very productive as a junior, and that didn't translate well to the pros. I think that DHB is clearly a high ceiling guy, but I don't like his floor. So yes, I guess I have unreasonable expectations of a 1st round receiver.

I think Chung clearly has some room to improve, and I like him a lot, though not as much as Delmas. I wouldn't be at all unhappy with him at 58, or even 47. But I personally wouldn't call him a "high ceiling" guy. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

 

[dryheat44]

Come on, Alex Boone? Footwork can be improved, but you can't teach natural LT kind of footwork. Boone will never be a solid, much less elite, LT. His ceiling would be a Kaczur-like RT, and his floor is lower than low.
.

Matt Light has been doing okay, and his footwork was somewhere between subpar and poor when he came out.

If it weren't for his alcoholism, I think Boone would be no worse than a 3rd round pick. His footwork is good for a tall guy, and his strength is impressive for his long arms, and he was a 3 year starter at LT for an elite NCAA program that always puts their RB into the draft.

If he were serious about checking into rehab, and commit himself to AA, I might take him with the 5th round comp.

My point is, the ceiling for both guys is starting left tackle. What makes Beatty more attractive is that right now he's much closer to that level. So, actually it's his projected floor that makes him a first-round player. He's a safe kid, not going to blow up. At worse, he'll be a starting guard. The floor for Boone is released from the practice squad after another relapse. So, yeah, he's less desirable....but it's not because of a low ceiling.

 

[mayoclinic]

Matt Light has been doing okay, and his footwork was somewhere between subpar and poor when he came out.

If it weren't for his alcoholism, I think Boone would be no worse than a 3rd round pick. His footwork is good for a tall guy, and his strength is impressive for his long arms, and he was a 3 year starter at LT for an elite NCAA program that always puts their RB into the draft.

If he were serious about checking into rehab, and commit himself to AA, I might take him with the 5th round comp.

My point is, the ceiling for both guys is starting left tackle. What makes Beatty more attractive is that right now he's much closer to that level. So, actually it's his projected floor that makes him a first-round player. He's a safe kid, not going to blow up. At worse, he'll be a starting guard. The floor for Boone is released from the practice squad after another relapse. So, yeah, he's less desirable....but it's not because of a low ceiling.

As far as I'm concerned, you've either been drinking again or have been off the sauce a bit too long, I'm not sure which.

The floor for Boone is clearly the sub-basement level, but I think you put his ceiling way to high. He was over-rated as a LT prospect before his meltdown. He's probably a Kaczur-like player, maybe Britton at best, and that's really stretching it.

Beatty's ceiling is not a starting LT, it's a Walter Jones calibre franchise LT. A more likely scenario is that he will be like D'Brickashaw Ferguson, someone who comes in with great feet but not strong enough and is considered a disappointment for 2 years while he works on his game and gets stronger, and then develops into a solid starting LT. But the gamble is much less on Beatty at #23-34 than on Ferguson at #4 was. The floor for Beatty is probably not much lower than that. I don't think he's a guard by any stretch of the imagination. It takes advantage of none of his strengths and plays to all of his weaknesses.

 

[dryheat44]

Beatty's ceiling is not a starting LT, it's a Walter Jones calibre franchise LT. A more likely scenario is that he will be like D'Brickashaw Ferguson, someone who comes in with great feet but not strong enough and is considered a disappointment for 2 years while he works on his game and gets stronger, and then develops into a solid starting LT. But the gamble is much less on Beatty at #23-34 than on Ferguson at #4 was. The floor for Beatty is probably not much lower than that. I don't think he's a guard by any stretch of the imagination. It takes advantage of none of his strengths and plays to all of his weaknesses.

Ummm. If his projected ceiling was a Walter Jones franchise LT, he would be taken up there with Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe. Projected franchise players aren't options to be taken with the 23rd pick of the draft. At best, he'll be the third OT taken...and could easily be the 6th.

He could be a 10 year all-pro, sure. But for that matter so could Curtis Painter or Joaquin Iglesias. Most things are possible.

I like Beatty, quite a bit. I think he's capable of starting at LT for the Pats. But to say his ceiling is Walter Jones and his floor isn't much lower is borderline delusional.